Human Resource Management Review: Pearl Malhotra, Manjari Singh

Human Resource Management Review 26 (2016) 209–226
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
Indirect impact of high performers on the career advancement

of their subordinates
Pearl Malhotra a,⁎, Manjari Singh b
a
Personnel & Industrial Relations Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, D6, R12, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380015, Gujarat, India
b
Personnel & Industrial Relations Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Wing-12D, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380015, Gujarat, India
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper proposes a conceptual model depicting the “indirect” impact of high performers on
Received 9 December 2014 their subordinates' career advancement. Although certain characteristics demonstrated by high
Received in revised form 27 January 2016 performers are not usually linked directly to either the development or career advancement of
Accepted 27 January 2016
their subordinates; we propose a model to help bridge this research gap. Our conceptual
framework allows us to understand the positive relation between characteristics of high
Keywords: performers and their subordinates' career advancement. For this paper, those characteristics
Subordinate career advancement were classified into two categories — a) job competencies and b) networking abilities. Using
Job competencies
Social Learning Theory, we propose that high performers provide modelling stimuli based on
Employee networking
live experiences to their subordinates. To better understand the relationship between the character-
istics of the high performer and their subordinates' career advancement, we have explored a set of
moderators and mediators pertaining to the subordinate. In addition to “indirect” impact, using
past literature we have also articulated the “direct” impact on subordinates' career advancement.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Most research on the manager–subordinate dyad has concentrated on the impact of managers on their subordinates' career
advancement due to voluntary effort on behalf of the managers (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002; Sloan, 2007; Wang, Law, Hackett,
Wang, & Chen, 2005; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). However, there is limited research on the positive effect of managers in
the absence of this extra-role or voluntary behaviour on behalf of the managers. In this paper we aim to conceptualise the impact
of high performers' characteristics on their subordinates' career advancement irrespective of the voluntary effort towards their
subordinates' careers. We term this impact as “indirect” impact because the subordinates' careers are positively influenced due
to performance-related characteristics of their high performing managers. “Direct” impact would entail voluntary, intentional
and extra-role effort on behalf of the manager to support and aid their subordinates' career advancement and has been studied
by several researchers in the past. The aim of this paper is to conceptually and theoretically look at the possible effects of
characteristics of high performers on their subordinates' career advancement, irrespective of the “direct” impact.
In organisations that encompass manager–subordinate dyads in their organisational structure, managers are known to have a
discernible influence on their subordinates. This influence could be relevant to the subordinates' levels of job satisfaction, perfor-
mance and in numerous cases even their career advancement. A multitude of studies have suggested that managers who are in-
volved in the betterment of their subordinates' careers, positively impact the latter's career advancement (Schaubroeck & Lam,
2002; Sloan, 2007; Wang et al., 2005). Most studies have attributed this positive relation to the voluntary and extra-role
⁎ Corresponding author at: Personnel & Industrial Relations Area, D6, R12, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380015, Gujarat, India.
E-mail addresses: pearlm@iimahd.ernet.in (P. Malhotra), manjari@iimahd.ernet.in (M. Singh).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.01.002
1053-4822/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
210 P. Malhotra, M. Singh / Human Resource Management Review 26 (2016) 209–226
endeavour of the manager to make a contribution towards their subordinates' growth and advancement (Cashman, Dansereau,
Graen, & Haga, 1976; Jiang & Klein, 1999; McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). Most of them are oriented towards the intentional
actions of the managers that get transcended into efforts towards the betterment of their subordinates' careers. The impact that
managers can have on the subordinate's careers when the former decide to support and aid the latter's career goals is a “direct”
impact. In the absence of this “direct” impact, managers are indicated to have either no relation and in certain cases have a
negative relation with their subordinates' career advancement (Blau, 1964; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Gouldner, 1960; Lam,
Peng, Wong, & Lau, 2015; Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997).
On the other hand, the stream of literature on high performers has consistently indicated that individuals who work with high
performers have a better career trajectory than others (Aguinis & O'Boyle, 2014; Backhaus & Heiner, 2014; Groysberg, Lee &
Nanda, 2008; Hacker, 2000; Ichniowski & Preston, 2014; Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993; Volmer & Sonnentag, 2011). Therefore, it
would be critical to understand, the impact that high performers might have if they are also in a managerial position. Not
many studies, either empirical or theoretical have looked at the probable impact that high performers might have on their sub-
ordinates. This probable “indirect” impact of high performers on their subordinates' career advancement has still not been given
sufficient attention. The aim of this paper is to understand what could be the impact of the characteristics of high performers on
their subordinates' career advancement, with or without being actively/“directly” involved in their subordinates' careers. Through
extant literature, it can be discerned that high performers across functions and industries are usually appraised better on two
major success inducing characteristics — their job competencies and networking abilities. These characteristics allow them to sus-
tain their high performance (Baker, 2000; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990; Katz, Tushman, & Allen, 1995; Kram, 1985;
Luthans, Rosenkrantz, & Hennessey, 1985; Michael & Yukl, 1993; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Orpen, 1995; Seibert,
Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Singh, Vinnicombe, & James, 2006; Wolff & Moser, 2009).
We suggest that the two pertinent attributes mentioned above “indirectly” impact high performers' subordinates' career ad-
vancement. This paper proposes a conceptual model that explains some of the factors that moderate and mediate this “indirect”
impact of job competencies and networking abilities of high performers. We have explained this positive impact that high per-
formers have on their subordinates' career advancement principally using the Social Learning Theory (SLT) (Bandura, 1971;
Weiss, 1977), with the support of Social Identification Theory (SIT) (Hogg, 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tajfel, 2010). Prior liter-
ature on impact of managers on their subordinates' career advancement has been categorised under “direct” impact. To theoret-
ically conceptualise “direct” impact of managers on their subordinates' careers we have looked at the Leader–Member Exchange
(LMX) Theory (Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2004; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser,
1999) and supervisory support (Babin & Boles, 1996; Greenhaus et al., 1990; Jiang & Klein, 1999; O'Driscoll & Beehr, 1994).
The implications of the paper are significant, firstly, in the context of organisational structures where the managers may not be
able to participate in their subordinates' career growth and development directly due to either the design of their work or the lack
of any intention to get involved in their careers. Several industries are aspiring towards a leaner middle management (Bauer,
2008; Humble, Jackson, & Thomson, 1994). This increases the span of control of managers resulting in fewer opportunities for
them to be proactively involved in the subordinates' career advancement. In addition, in organisations where virtual or geograph-
ically spread teams are common, it is possible that the investment and involvement of the managers in their subordinates' growth
and development might be limited due to time constraints or limited face to face interactions. Additionally, it can be assumed that
any interaction is usually related to the task at hand rather than to any personal feedback regarding subordinates' careers (Howell,
Neufeld, & Avolio, 2005).
Our model of “indirect” impact is based on SLT. SLT propagates that learning happens via observation and depends on the per-
ceptibility of characteristics of the role model they are observing, rather than only through direct reinforcement. Technical and
functional competencies are more apparent and easier to emulate than behavioural or attitudinal competencies at the workplace
(Cheng & Ho, 2001; Motwani, Frahm, & Kathawala, 1994). Therefore, this paper becomes more applicable in organisational roles
where the managers' technical and functional competencies are essential to their success, rather than the contribution of the sub-
ordinates towards their targets. In such organisations managing careers of subordinates would be a voluntary and extra-role be-
haviour rather than a part of their job description. Secondly, not many researchers have delved into how the job competencies
and networking abilities of managers impact their subordinates' career advancement and, therefore, we would be adding to
this field of literature. Theoretically, we are suggesting an additive model that could explain a positive impact on the career ad-
vancement of subordinates, with or without the presence of LMX or supervisory support (Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Joireman, 2008;
Manz & Sims, 1980). Therefore, it becomes pertinent to investigate whether there is a possibility of high performers positively
impacting their subordinates' career “indirectly” due to their inherent characteristics even when they are not directly attentive
towards their growth and development. Since research suggests that (Boyatzis, 1982; Casciaro & Lobo, 2005; De Janasz,
Sullivan, & Whiting, 2003; De Vos & Soens, 2008; Klemp & McClelland, 1986; McKenna, 2002) proficiency in job competencies
and networking abilities are the mainstays of high performers, we will explain “indirect” impact using these two characteristics.
We have suggested that these characteristics would lead to the enrichment of human and social capital enrichment of subordi-
nates, which has been proposed to lead to their career advancement. However, all subordinates working under high performers
will not have the same degree of “indirect” impact. Therefore we have introduced mediating and moderating factors that affect
the variation in the “indirect” impact. These factors have been discussed in the section on “Framework integrating mediators
and moderators affecting “indirect” impact”. While elucidating the relationship between job competencies of high performers
and their subordinates' career advancement, we have looked at mediators and moderators based on SLT. Similarly, the mediator
and the moderator explaining the relationship between networking abilities of high performers and their subordinates' career
advancement have been introduced on the basis of the literature on employee networking.
P. Malhotra, M. Singh / Human Resource Management Review 26 (2016) 209–226 211
In the next section, we have given the definitions of key constructs used in our model. This is followed by the literature
review, the conceptual framework in detail, along with the implications and limitations of this model.
2. Defining key constructs
This paper borrows several constructs defined in prior literature and employs terms that have been coined for the purpose of
this paper. In the following section, we have contextually defined the key terms that are incorporated in the proposed model.
2.1. High performers
High performers contribute more than their peers towards the organisation's success. They are also rated above their peers on
performance parameters as defined by their organisations for a sustained period. This indicates that they experience visibly higher
success than their peers for the majority of their career (Groysberg et al., 2008; Narin & Breitzman, 1995). Literature indicates that
this success can be demonstrated through tangible parameters such as their performance and productivity or can be gauged by
non-tangible factors such as their behavioural tendencies, or, both (McKenna, 2002). Therefore, their performance can be evalu-
ated in terms of their output or their behaviour. However, the former is a stronger indicator of a high performer if it is consistent-
ly displayed (Aguinis & O'Boyle, 2014; McKenna, 2002). For the purpose of our paper, we will look at the tangible parameters of
measuring performance.
High performers can be engaged in roles across levels and functions; however they contribute extensively, and influence the
success or failure of their department or the organisation depending on their position in the hierarchy (Aguinis & O'Boyle, 2014).
In most cases, they contribute positively to a significantly higher degree compared with others (Gould & Hawkins, 1978;
Groysberg et al., 2008; Rosen, 1981). In addition to performance ratings and productivity measurements, we would also like to
include expeditious promotions and career growth as parameters that signal high performance. This would indicate that their
performance is being recognised by their supervisors and the organisation.
Previous studies might have implied that a high performer might possess the skills of a theoretically “good” manager (Katz,
1974; Mintzberg, 1973); however, it might not always be true (Luthans, 1988; McKenna, 2002). A high performer is someone
who demonstrates success and contribution towards the organisation consistently and in tangible forms. The major distinction
between the literature of a “good manager” and that of “high performing managers” is that the former research is normative,
and the latter is descriptive. High performers & “good” managers might have some overlapping characteristics, however they
might not necessarily be both (McKenna, 2002).
2.2. Direct impact of managers on subordinates
Predominantly studies have looked at the impact of the manager on the subordinates' career advancement due to the inten-
tional action of the manager (Bass, 1999; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994;
Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999). For our paper, we term it as “direct” impact. Existing literature in the domain of LMX
and supervisory support helped understand the “direct” impact of a manager.
2.3. “Indirect” impact of high performers on subordinates' career advancement
In certain cases, high performers may not be actively working towards their subordinates' career advancement; however there
is a possibility of an unintended impact of the attributes on the subordinates' career advancement. This can be termed as
“indirect” impact. The reason for it being termed “indirect” is because the priority of the actions, behaviour, skills and attitude
of the high performers while interacting and communicating with their subordinates may not be the advancement, growth and
development of these subordinates. However, through our model we propose that in spite of them not focussing on the subordi-
nates' growth and development, they positively impact it.
2.4. Career advancement
Career advancement indicates promotions, salary hikes and other facets such as job enrichment, job enhancement, horizontal
growth, supplementary assignments, significant opportunities, apportioning organisationally important responsibilities and high
visibility projects, coveted recognitions and autonomy for decision-making (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Kram &
Isabella, 1985; Sturges, 1999). Thus, our model looks at both the objective as well as subjective parameters of career advancement
(Ng et al., 2005). Objective measures for career advancement include speed of promotions, monetary rewards, formal recognition,
professional honours and other tangible elements that clearly indicate success vis-à-vis their peers and colleagues. The subjective
elements are dependent on the subordinates' perceptions of their career success (Feldman, 2007).
2.5. Job competencies of high performers
Wickramasinghe and Zoyza (2009, p. 2547) define a competency as “a measurable characteristic that can be defined in terms
of ability and willingness to do a task, generic knowledge, motive, trait, social role, or skill of a person that is related to effective
performance in a specific job, organisation, or culture”. Adeptness at job competencies aids in differentiating high performers from
their peers. Managers that are evaluated better on the set of competencies defined for their role by their organisation were iden-
tified as high performers compared to the others (Campion et al., 2011; Cheng, Dainty, & Moore, 2005; Young & Dulewicz, 2009).
According to Boyatzis (1982), competencies are imperative for high performance. Chong (2013) conducted a study to identify job
competencies for managers that lead to high performance across varied cultures. Some of the competencies that are required for
high performance are problem-solving, judgement, risk-taking, creativity, decision-making, business sense, helicopter (rising
above the current situation and to instead look at the bigger picture), organisation and extra-organisation sensitivity and aware-
ness etc. (Cross, Davenport, & Cantrell, 2003; Cross & Thomas, 2008; Lee, 2010). We are also assuming that managing subordi-
nates' growth and career would be a part of their extra-role behaviour and any action towards it would be a voluntary
endeavour on behalf of the manager and not a part of their official job competencies. These job competencies are demonstrated
by high performers to ensure that they remain top performers, and are usually observable to their subordinates. By displaying
these job competencies, not only are they achieving high levels of performance and but also being delineated as high performers
and as role models by their subordinates.
2.6. Networking abilities of high performers
High performers can be differentiated from their peers on the basis of their superior competence levels however, what really
distinguishes them “is their ability to maintain and leverage personal networks” (Cross et al., 2003, p. 20). As a consequence, most
high performers are probably more visible than their peers primarily due to their high performance and especially due to their
networking abilities. They, therefore, might receive additional attention internally as well as externally from clients, customers
and other partner organisations (Gould & Hawkins, 1978). They are highly productive, and also extremely perceptible in their
social network at work (Groysberg et al., 2008). They are associated with mentors and coaches within the organisation and
extract maximum social learning through these connections. Social sponsorship and imbibing feedback from mentors give them
an additional advantage in terms of gaining from social capital (Jones, 2008).
Therefore, we can suggest that though job competencies are important, it is their networking abilities which segregate high
performers from their average peers and further enhance their position within the organisation (Cross et al., 2003). Most high
performers learn early in their careers that being likeable and highly networked is as important as being competent (Casciaro
& Lobo, 2005). Networking can be defined as “individuals' attempts to develop and maintain relationships with others who
have the potential to assist them in their work or career” (Forret & Dougherty, 2004, p. 6). To advance and create opportunities
within the organisation both the attributes of the individuals and the relationship/ties with the right individuals are pertinent
(Granovetter, 1973; Milgram, 1967). As literature suggests high performers have prominent networking abilities that help them
create ties which further help increase their social capital which further help them in their performance and in its publicising
(Cross & Thomas, 2008; Cross et al., 2003). Networking also becomes important from the perspective of how much influence
do they have within the organisation. The better their relations with key actors along with a favourable perception of their skills
leads to a more influential position as well as the adage of a high performer (Cross et al., 2003).
Several authors have indicated that networking is positively correlated to career success (Wolff & Moser, 2009). Studies have
causally linked networking ability to promotions (van Emmerik, Euwema, Geschiere, & Schouten, 2006; Forret & Dougherty,
2004). Several studies associated networking behaviours with increased visibility, which in turn positively affects promotions.
Visibility can be augmented by taking up projects with exposure to & interaction with other departments within the organisation
(Sturges, Guest, Conway, & Davey, 2002). When it is oriented towards internal networking, it has a high impact on promotions
and compensation (Forret & Dougherty, 2004). Thus, a significant antecedent of high performers' success outcomes is their net-
working abilities.
2.7. Enrichment of human capital
Human capital constitutes an individual's degree of education, training, and experience and the skills, knowledge, attitude and
capabilities developed or inherent due to these factors (Ballout, 2007; Garavan, Morley, Gunnigle, & Collins, 2001; Colombo &
Grilli, 2005; Wayne et al., 1999). It is created by a change in or development of skills and capabilities of an individual (Seibert,
Kraimer and Crant, 2001). For human capital to be a precursor for career advancement it needs to embody uniqueness and
value (Ballout, 2007; Becker, 1964). Though human capital can be viewed at both organisational (Lepak & Snell, 1999; Wright,
Dunford, & Snell, 2001) and individual (Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001; Wayne et al., 1999) levels, for the purpose of our
paper we would be looking at human capital at the individual level. Also, rather than restricting human capital with elements
such as education level, training and experience, we would include skills, knowledge, attitude and capabilities that allow an indi-
vidual to perform at work (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004; Wayne et al., 1999). A positive change in any of these components
leads to enrichment of human capital. We are looking at the impact of enrichment of human capital of the subordinates on their
career advancement.
2.8. Enrichment of social capital
Social capital embodies the structure and function of social relations of a central actor (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Lin, 1999). It is a
resource that is functional and productive due to the presence of actors and the social relationship with each of the actors. Social
capital depends on the trustworthiness, goodwill, influence and the possibility of obligations being reciprocal within the social
network (Coleman, 1988; Sandefur & Laumann, 1998). Networking abilities enhance the quality of the social capital by adding
more actors from diverse social systems and also by making them more productive in the context of social capital (Coleman,
1990). Social capital plays a significant role in the advancement of individuals' careers (Seibert, Kraimer and Liden, 2001). A
network leads to the generation of social capital, and newer and more resourceful networks lead to enrichment of the existing
social capital. Most research has indicated that enrichment of social capital is positively related to career advancement across
hierarchical levels.
In the next section we will look at literature on “direct” impact through the lens of LMX theory & supervisory support.
3. Literature review and theoretical underpinnings of “direct” impact of managers
Managers “directly” impact their subordinates' career advancement if they take an interest in their subordinates' career
development. This could include providing additional resources, information and other support to aid career advancement
(Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002; Sloan, 2007; Wang et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 1997). Past research indicates that the social relationship
between the manager and the subordinate facilitates the positive impact that a manager can have on her/his subordinate's
development and advancement (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). In case of “direct” impact, there is an element
of voluntary volition on behalf of the manager to develop and advance their subordinates' career. “Direct” impact, as defined
above, has been explored by several researchers through LMX theory and supervisory support. In the following sub-sections,
we will be using these two constructs to elaborate further on “direct” impact.
3.1. Understanding “direct” impact of managers on subordinates using LMX
Researchers have equated high LMX with the investment that a manager makes towards the growth and development of a
subordinate which in turn induces a relationship of reciprocity that is based on mutual trust, respect and obligation (Brower,
Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen, 2009; Dockery & Steiner, 1990; Graen & Schiemann, 1978; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This indicates
that high LMX would give rise to a more fruitful relationship which in turn would have a positive impact on the manager, the
follower and the organisations (Liden et al., 1997; Ferris et al., 2009; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Maslyn &
Uhl-Bien, 2001; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003; Zalesny &
Graen, 1987). Therefore, LMX conceptually could symbolise “direct” impact that a manager has on her/his subordinates in our
context.
LMX depends on the relationship between the manager and the subordinate, also called the manager–subordinate dyad
(Dulebohn et al., 2012; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). For any manager to have a favourable impact on their subordinates, the relation-
ship between the two needs to be developed (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991; McAllister, 1995). Several researchers have indicated that
the quality and characteristics of this relationship determine the quality of social exchange which eventually could benefit both
the subordinate and the manager.
The “direct” impact that the leader has on the members (Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Gouldner,
1960; Liden et al., 1997; Scandura & Lankau, 1996) is propelled by the obligation that the leader feels towards the betterment
of the subordinate. In reciprocation, the follower might be compelled to go beyond the call of her/his duty (Greene, 1975). Obli-
gation stems from the active interest that the managers take in their subordinates' growth. In the context of role making, in cases
of high LMX, both the manager & the subordinates are acting beyond the roles ascribed to them by the organisation (Graen, 1976,
2013). Due to the nature of their relationship, managers take a particular interest in their subordinates which gives the latter
“career enhancing opportunities”, “access to key personnel” and resources, and “increasing level of discretion” at the workplace
(Wang et al., 2005, p. 422). The subordinates reciprocate with improved performance, organisational citizenship behaviour, job
satisfaction, loyalty towards their managers and the organisation and lower turnover intentions (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen
& Uhl-Bien, 1995; Dulebohn et al., 2012) which lead to the subordinates' career advancement (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Heslin,
2005). LMX and consequently the dyadic relationship between the manager and the subordinate are grounded in role and
exchange theories (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen, Orris, & Johnson, 1973; Graen, 1976).
3.2. Understanding “direct” impact of managers on subordinates using supervisory support
Jiang and Klein (1999, p. 237) have stated that supervisory support encompasses — “sponsorship, facilitating exposure and vis-
ibility, coaching, and protection” with respect to the subordinates. This support provided by the managers to their subordinates
can be termed as concern for their subordinates' well-being which might not be limited to the confines of a work-based relation-
ship (Babin & Boles, 1996; Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, & Jia, 2008). Supervisory support indicates a close relationship between the man-
ager and the subordinate that promulgates social exchange and mutual respect and trust for each other (Burke, Borucki, & Hurley,
1992; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). This relationship and goodwill generated by the manager would lead to a sense of
obligation on behalf of the subordinate to provide better services and higher loyalty towards both the organisation and their man-
ager, which in turn would both motivate and obligate the manager to provide continued supervisory support (Blau, 1964;
Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Zhang et al., 2008). This reciprocal relationship spurs performance, job satisfaction and thus career
advancement of the subordinate within the organisation (Babin & Boles, 1996; O'Driscoll & Beehr, 1994; Eisenberger,
Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Greenhaus et al., 1990; Malatesta, 1995; Shanock & Eisenberger,
2006). Supervisory support from the immediate manner thus leads to tangible career outcomes (Scandura, 1992), along with
career satisfaction and even perceived career opportunities internally as well as externally (Jiang & Klein, 1999). Therefore, we
can infer that supervisory support is a prominent indicator of the “direct” impact of a manager on the subordinates' career
advancement. In the next section, we would look at the conceptual framework that would help explain the “indirect” impact
of high performers on their subordinates.
4. Conceptual framework
Most of the studies that measure the impact of managers on subordinates' career looked at the characteristics of the managers
from the perspective of the leader–member relationship or supervisory support (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Wayne et al., 2002). The
characteristics of the leaders were related to the development of the team members, such as transformational leadership skills,
expectations from subordinates, rewarding behaviour, and goal setting (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Graen
& Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Whittington, 1997). These competencies
are related to “managing subordinates” and not necessarily related to the function that they handle. We are trying to establish
that irrespective of a “direct” impact, there is an “indirect” impact of the manager on the subordinates' career advancement,
when the manager is a high performer. This “indirect” impact happens due to certain intrinsic qualities of the high performer.
The benefits of high proficiency in job competencies and the networking abilities that are the essence of success and career
advancement for these high performers affect their subordinates, with or without “direct” impact. These characteristics of the
high performers lead to the enrichment of human and social capital of their subordinates which as past studies have indicated
would lead to the latter's career advancement (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001; Wayne et al., 1999).
High performers as discussed earlier are exceptionally adept at the job competencies defined for their role. Working under the
aegis of high performers could provide their subordinates with opportunities to start emulating these skills and behaviour, thus
upgrading their human capital. The need for conformity might compel the subordinates to imitate and imbibe the qualities of
the high performer (Bernheim, 1994) to achieve commonality (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002). Also, subordinates might tend to in-
ternalise the values and belief system of their bosses which mmight psitively impact their own performance (Wang et al.,
2005). Therefore, some of the qualities of high performers could be learned and imbibed by their subordinates.
In addition, the networking abilities of the high performers might allow their subordinates to be exposed to social networks,
information, resources and visibility and thus could enhance their own “social capital” within their working affiliation (Burt, 1997;
Podolny & Baron, 1997; Singh, Kumra, & Vinnicombe, 2002). Managers in general might be in a better position compared with
their subordinates to interact with a more diverse set of actors due to their role and as a conduit between their team and the
rest of the organisation. Therefore, the social capital of managers could be richer than that of their subordinates. Similarly, due
to high networking abilities the social capital of a high performer might be more enriched than their colleagues (Kim, 2014;
Sparrowe & Liden, 2005; Venkataramani, Richter, & Clarke, 2014). Therefore, access to a social network of a high performing man-
ager could enhance the subordinate's social capital. The social capital of the high performers created through their networking
abilities within the organisation is a potential source of new ties for the subordinates (Kim, 2014; Sparrowe & Liden, 2005;
Venkataramani, Green, & Schleicher, 2010; Venkataramani et al., 2014). Previous research has indicated that the degree of influ-
ence of the manager's social capital on the team's performance and careers depends on the productivity of the manager–
subordinate dyad (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999; Yukl, 2002; Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson, 2006; Venkataramani et al., 2014).
However, when high performers utilise their social network to perform and execute tasks there is a possibility that their subor-
dinates could gain access to this network for work-related purposes.
Even though the manager “directly” does not invest in their careers, growth and development, purely by the fact that they
have attributes of a high performer, her/his subordinates would benefit in terms of their career advancement. To understand
the process of “indirect” impact of high performers on their subordinates better, we would use SLT and SIT. SLT suggests that
learning occurs in a given social structure through observation and emulation without direct reinforcement. Social learning facil-
itates a vicarious and cognitive process. Learning is through observation and functioning in a particular social context (Bandura,
1962, 1977; Weiss, 1977). Social learning along with role model theory reinstates that there will be an emulation of the charac-
teristics of the high performer by the subordinate (Singh et al., 2006). The theory's main contribution is that learning can happen
not only through direct reinforcement and punishment but also through observation of models in the social context (Bandura,
1969, 1977, 1986; Mahoney, 1977; Manz & Sims, 1980).
The environment or external social reinforcement influences behaviour and internal social reinforcement aids in maintaining
the modifications. Learning is achieved through observation and emulation of the behaviour of a role model in their social envi-
ronment. However, belief in one's own behavioural capability of reproducing that behaviour aids in transforming learning into
permanent behavioural traits (Bandura, 1986, 2002). The behaviour is maintained and reinforced both through environmental
or internal reinforcements, depending on the nature of stimuli received. If the consequences of the behaviour are positive there
is a higher likelihood of continuing that behaviour vis-à-vis discontinuing it which might happen if there are negative conse-
quences. If the person has the confidence in her/his abilities and has the belief in her/his own behavioural capabilities to perform
the learned behaviour (self-efficacy), the chances of the long-term incorporation of this new behaviour is higher (Bandura, 2001).
Therefore when subordinates work with their high performing managers in a high performing environment, they tend to start
emulating these high performers who then become akin to role models in a social learning induced environment. The organisa-
tion as well as their ability to utilise this environment to enhance their human & social capital helps provide the stimuli and the
resultant career advancement helps maintain it.
On the other hand, SIT suggests that individuals perceive their own image by associating themselves with a group or a partic-
ular characteristic (Haslam, Ellemers, Reicher, Reynolds, & Schmitt, 2010; Turner & Oakes, 1986; Tajfel, 1969, 1972, 2010; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Wang et al., 2005). Moreover, there is a need to reinforce a positive image of oneself through association with this
group. The “self-esteem hypothesis” (Turner, 1982; Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979) explains this need for a positive social image
for their affiliation to a positive identity (Hogg, 2001). Excogitating from SIT, we can surmise that subordinates socially identify
themselves by being part of a team managed by a high performer. It makes them want to derive their identity and thus they
wish to incorporate the perceptive and ingrained characteristics that are being displayed and expected by the high performer.
The “social attraction hypothesis” (Hogg, 1992, 2001) indicates that instead of personal relations, social attractiveness drives
the need for identifying with the socially prominent high performer. The derivation of the identity through this association
provides the motivation to the subordinate for social learning.
In the following sections, we will look at how job competencies and networking abilities of high performers impact their sub-
ordinates' career advancement. We also look at mediators and moderators that would help us further understand this “indirect”
impact of high performers on their subordinates' career advancement. Fig. 1 visually depicts these linkages and relationships that
will be discussed.
4.1. Impact of job competencies on subordinate's career advancement
Though very few studies have actually looked at the effect of job competencies of managers and their subordinates' career
advancement, past research has indicated that there could be a link between the two (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Katz
et al., 1995; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Sloan, 2007; Weiss, 1977). Some of these studies have also indicated that the better
the performance of the manager the stronger the impact on the career advancement of the subordinate (Farmer & Aguinis, 2005;
Katz et al., 1995; Pelletier & Vallerand, 1996; Sloan, 2007). The more aligned the subordinates' performance standards are to the
expectations of their high performing manager, the more is the probability of their career advancement. Exploring from this as-
pect, we can look at a compendium of job competencies that would be exhibited overtly or covertly by high performers, which
can impact the capabilities of their subordinates. This impact would be merely by the virtue of the high performer demonstrating
these faculties at a superlative level. It is also noted that high performers with high levels of adeptness at these job competencies
would preferably want high performing employees in their team (Kraut, Pedigo, McKenna, & Dunnette, 1989); therefore they
might encourage conduct that embodies high performance. Functioning in that state would aid in the career advancement of
the subordinates (Dasgupta, Suar, & Singh, 2012). Some of the behaviours could include reduced instances of mistakes made, in-
creased eye for detail, efficient and increased productivity are all behaviours that can be learnt on the job by imitating the high
performers' style of working. Also the technical knowledge of high performers would get imparted as learning, to their subordi-
nates through conscious knowledge transfer as well as discursively while working jointly on projects and tasks (Eraut, Alderton,
Cole, & Senker, 1998).
SLT propagates learning through observation and, in this case, would explain the cognizance of behavioural patterns of high
performers by their subordinates and the latter's tendency to successfully emulate their high performing managers' behaviour
(Bandura, 1977). High performers can be role models for their subordinates if the latter want to improve the level of their
Fig. 1. Conceptual model depicting the process of “indirect” impact of high performers on their subordinates' career advancement.
own job competencies (Noe, 1988; Wexley & Pulakos, 1983). Observable demonstration of job competencies by high performers
would allow their subordinates to emulate these behaviours and competencies. Social learning could enable a change in the
competence level via a combination of influences in their environment and their own perception of those influences. Working
in a culture of work standards set by a high performer such as your boss would provide the external stimulus that would not
only want them to perform well but also adopt the competence levels that would enable this high performance. Therefore, higher
the competence levels displayed by their manager, the more the possibility of the external as well as internal stimulus being
aligned to perform better, leading to their career advancement.
In addition, SIT further manifests the internal stimulus for the subordinates to adopt the job competencies that they can
observe in the high performers they are working under. The need to derive their own identity through their association with
the high performer actualises the absorption of their working styles and patterns which subsequently improve their career
advancement. Thus, job competencies of high performers would impact the subordinates' career advancement positively. Thus,
managers with higher job competencies will have more impact on the career advancement of their subordinates than those
having lower job competencies.
4.2. Impact of networking abilities on subordinates' career advancement
As mentioned earlier, high performers rely on their networking ability for their own career advancement and success out-
comes (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004). When high performers leverage their networking abilities, they are exposed
to decision-makers and other game-changing activities and an explicit bearing on the functional processes in the organisation
(Brass et al., 2004). In fact, high performers will usually have more influence within the organisation than their counterparts
(Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Tymon & Stumpf, 2003). These positive effects could be cascaded to
the subordinates, possibly impacting the their performance and visibility and accordingly their career advancement (Burt,
1992; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Katz et al., 1995; Kim, 2014; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Venkataramani et al., 2010). When subor-
dinates work under a high performer with rich networks, they could acquire admittance to the high performer's networks. One
reason for the possibility of this admittance could be that high performers use their networks for professional and work purposes.
Once subordinates have established these contacts, they also have access to opportunities and resources generated through these
networks. These relationships can be exploited by the subordinates to gain exposure to new prospects, information and high
visibility. SLT indicates that they might learn how to create networks or to build and communicate their credibility within the
organisation from the high performers they are working under (Bandura, 1977). This would allow them to not only utilise the
high performer's networks but also develop their own networks which would further enhance opportunities for career advance-
ment (Granovetter, 1973, 1983). As discussed above, an enhanced social network leads to a positive impact on career advance-
ment. Thus, managers possessing higher networking abilities will have more impact on the career advancement of their
subordinates than those possessing lower networking abilities.
5. Framework integrating mediators and moderators affecting “indirect” impact
In order to further understand the “indirect” impact of high performers on their subordinates' career advancement we have
looked at the mediating and moderating that explain the relationship between job competence levels and networking abilities
of managers and their subordinates' career advancement. These factors elucidate the process of the “indirect” impact.
5.1. Elucidating the relation between job competencies of high performers and subordinates' career advancement
5.1.1. Emulation of job competencies

The relationship between job competencies of the high performers and the career advancement of their subordinates can be
theoretically mediated by certain characteristics, attitude and actions on behalf of the subordinates. Previous literature has
proposed that behaviours of high performers, who exhibit characteristics that are socially and professionally preferable, are con-
sidered role models and are looked up to in their organisations (Bandura, 1986; Bandura, 1977). Subordinates working under
these high performers would also aim at replicating these exhibited characteristics and thus would be oriented towards emulating
them (Bandura, 1962; Weiss, 1977). When subordinates start emulating high performers, a certain culture of work standard is
transferred in the form of a domino effect (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Davis & Luthans,
1980; House, 1996; Weiss, 1977). The expectations from high performers are set towards an output that would allow them to
remain high performers. Accordingly their subordinates would probably adopt and demonstrate the behaviours and working
style projected by these high performers (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Kotter, 2008; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000; Schein,
2010; Rich, 1997). The more the subordinate emulates, the higher will be the similarity in quality and style of work demonstrated
by their high performing managers. Thus, there is an incentive for their subordinates to emulate the former's actions, behaviours
and characteristics at the workplace and in their jobs. Therefore, demonstrated job competencies of high performers, might be
embodied by their subordinates in several instances at work (Hill, 1992).
SLT implies that learning can happen through observation of managers' behaviour and not necessarily by living through one's
own experiences and high performers are good examples of behaviour to role models (Bandura, 1986). The first step of social
learning would be emulation/imitation (Bandura, 1962; Miller & Dollard, 1941). Subordinates would assume that the best way
to replicate the performance of their manager would be to emulate the high performer's behaviour. We assume that the goal
of the subordinates would be to achieve career success equivalent to the high performers. Therefore emulating the strategies and
working style of these high performers would create an impact on their behaviour which would hopefully lead them towards
their goal of achieving success. This emulation would allow them to enhance their own competency levels and incorporate certain
new behavioural traits that would lead to enrichment of their own human capital.
SIT additionally explains the need for learning through emulation and embodiment of behavioural patterns and characteristics
of high performers by their subordinates. The subordinates attribute a part of their identity to being a team member of such high
performers and, therefore, to maintain high similarity and their identity derived from aforesaid association they would want
to display similar characteristics. This embodiment and demonstration of the characteristics and behavioural patterns of the
high performer would impact them meeting the high performer's and their organisation's expectations and thus lead to career
advancement. Thus we propose that:
Proposition 1a. Emulation of job competencies by subordinates will mediate the relationship between job competencies of managers
and career advancement of subordinates.
5.1.2. Enriched human capital of subordinates

As the degree of emulation increases, the behaviours exhibited would become integrated with the acquired skill sets of the
subordinate (Bandura, 1977). Incorporation of job competencies as exhibited by high performers in the skill set of their subordi-
nates would enrich the latter's human capital (Luthans et al., 2004; Wayne et al., 1999). One of the ways to develop and enhance
human capital requires observation of skills as well as learning and embodying those skills through practice (Waters, 1980). A
higher degree of emulation would increase the frequency of application of the skill. Repetitive application of certain behaviours
would assimilate them into their skills set, knowledge and expertise (Anderson, Fincham, & Douglass, 1997; Bandura, 1976;
Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993). This would subsequently enhance the subordinates' human capital (Gist, Bavetta, & Stevens,
1990). Thus, the higher the frequency and intensity of emulation by the subordinates, the more will be the probability of their
human capital enrichment. Therefore even though the high performer might not be “directly” investing in their growth and
development through feedback or training recommendations, their subordinates will be empowered to upgrade their own skill
repository and human capital. Using SLT in our context, we can suggest that subordinates might observe high performers acting
as role models at the workplace (Luthans et al., 2004). These high performers visibly demonstrate behaviours that lead to superior
performance compared with others in the organisation (Groysberg et al., 2008; Oldroyd & Morris, 2012). Subordinates while
closely working with them are influenced and learn through observation rather than any direct reinforcement from their man-
agers. There is an integration of the influences gained by working under high performers and the cognitive response to such stim-
ulus from the environment which enables the adoption of the high performer's behavioural traits (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 2002).
Subordinates will attempt emulation and adoption of behaviours demonstrated by the high performers they are working under
to ensure that they replicate their success and if such behaviours indicate positive consequences, there will be a positive reinforce-
ment to continue such behaviour. Depending on their own sense of self-efficacy (which will be discussed later) they will be able
to enrich their human capital by incorporating these behaviours continuously (Bandura, 1986, 2002). An increase in human
capital has shown to be positively related to career advancement in terms of promotions, salary progression and performance
assessments (Wayne et al., 1999). Organisations reward employees who continuously upgrade their skills through varied experi-
ences and training and are able to successfully adapt to newer demands for career advancement through promotions, growth and
salary increments (Ballout, 2007).
An enrichment of their capabilities and betterment of their skill set would prepare the subordinates better for uncertainties
and newer opportunities at the workplace thus positively influencing their career advancement (Aryee, Chay, & Tan, 1994;
Ballout, 2007; Tharenou, Latimer, & Conroy, 1994; Wayne et al., 1999). Also as individuals enrich their human capital, they devel-
op skills and abilities that might give them a competitive edge over their peers making them more valuable for their organisation
and are thus rewarded with career advancement (Harris, Pattie, & McMahan, 2015; Sturman, Walsh, & Cheramie, 2008). Thus we
propose that:
Proposition 1b. Enriched human capital of subordinates will mediate the relationship between emulation of job competencies of
managers and career advancement of subordinates.
5.1.3. Self-efficacy
Emulation of behavioural traits leads to enrichment of human capital. However, human capital for an individual is relatively
permanent, and emulation of certain traits would not automatically lead to this permanent change. The key factor according to
SLT to ensure that there is any permanent change to the competence levels and thus their human capital is usually indicated
by the level of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Gist, 1987; Locke, Frederick, Lee, &
Bobko, 1984). Self-efficacy can be defined as the cognitive perception of “how well one can execute courses of action required
to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122) or in simpler words, how highly does one think of her/his own ca-
pabilities at doing a particular task. Self-efficacy has been directly linked as one of the key factors for social learning (Bandura,
1977, 1978) and a precursor for how well can one actually emulate a particular characteristic of their role model. Therefore,
the high levels of competence of high performers might motivate their subordinates to emulate the characteristics and job com-
petencies. However, the subordinates have a higher probability of converting their emulation of competencies into enduring
characteristics if they have high self-efficacy. High self-efficacy would give them the belief in their own capabilities to do their
tasks well (Delmar, 2000). High self-efficacy has been demonstrated in earlier studies to show a high positive correlation with
the efforts, perseverance especially in case of barriers and the actual outcomes (Markman, Balkin, & Baron, 2002; Ucbasaran,
Westhead, & Wright, 2008).
As per SLT the more capable that an individual believes oneself to be, the more the emulation would lead to eventual enrich-
ment of human capital, since it would impact her/his actual capabilities, execution of those competencies (Bandura, 1982;
Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006) and thus their career advancement. Thus we propose that:
Proposition 1c. Self-efficacy positively moderates the relationship between emulation by subordinates of job competencies of managers
and enrichment of human capital of subordinates.
Therefore job competencies of high performers may “indirectly” have a positive impact on the career advancement of their
subordinates, even without “directly” influencing their careers.
5.2. Elucidating the relation between networking abilities of high performers and their subordinates' career advancement
5.2.1. Enriched social capital of subordinates

The positive relationship between the networking abilities of high performers and their subordinates' career is mediated by
the enrichment of the social capital of the subordinate. Most research focus on development of social network by the individuals
rather than the probability of borrowing it from others (Venkataramani et al., 2014). A manager's social capital is mostly consid-
ered to be richer and more productive than that of the subordinates (Kennedy, Loughry, Klammer, & Beyerlein, 2008;
Venkataramani et al., 2014). As mentioned earlier, the social network of high performers possibly encompasses a richer social
capital than their peers. Therefore, their subordinates enhance their own social capital post exposure and access to this network
would allow them to build their own social capital. Previous studies claim that the proximity and quality of exchange determine
how well the subordinate can utilise their bosses' social ties (Kim, 2014; Sparrowe & Liden, 2005; Venkataramani et al., 2010,
2014).
High performers utilise their social capital to help maintain and propagate the label of a high performer (Balkundi, Kilduff, &
Harrison, 2011). This process allows them to continuously develop and employ their social capital. They rely on their social ties for
not only personal gains but also for functional and work-related tasks and thus their subordinates could be frequently exposed to
these social ties and networks while working (Kim, 2014). Therefore, we suggest that irrespective of the degree of manager's
sponsorship there would be an exposure to the high performers' social network while working with them, due to their reliance
on this social capital for routine functioning. Networking abilities of high performers could thus impact the social capital of their
subordinates.
Previous research has indicated that enhanced social capital leads to career advancement (Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001). The
more enhanced the subordinates' network, the higher will be the social capital (Coleman, 1988; Portes, 2000). Their high
performer's social network would give them access to information, resources and also allow them to gain career sponsorship
through these new social ties (Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001). Since the social network of the high performers is socially
more valuable, the social ties that their subordinates can develop through the high performers' networks will be more resourceful
and productive than those developed through their own peer network. The subordinates of high performers with superior net-
working abilities would thus have a more enriched social capital which will eventually lead to her/his career advancement.
Proposition 2a. Enriched social capital of subordinates will mediate the relationship between networking abilities of managers and
career advancement of subordinates.
5.2.2. Extraversion and self-esteem of subordinates

Not all subordinates would be able to harness the access to the valuable social ties of their high performing managers. The
extent of utilisation of the high performers' social network into their own social capital by the subordinates would vary depending
on the traits that subordinates possess. One parameter that would moderate the degree of utilisation would be their personality
traits. Several studies have indicated that personality traits influence the development and quality of social ties (Asendorpf &
Wilpers, 1998; Forret & Dougherty, 2001; Kalish, 2008; Landis, 2015). Certain personality traits are more likely to induce behav-
iours that would precede networking. These behaviours could include engaging in frequent interaction with social ties as well as
proactively developing new ones. For our model, we would specifically look at extraversion and self-esteem since they are
indicators of career success, proactive behaviour and networking ability (Forret & Dougherty, 2001; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, &
Barrick, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001). In addition to that, these variables have repeatedly been cited in the literature
as a precursor to large social networks with high social capital (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Casciaro, 1998; Forret &
Dougherty, 2001; Kalish, 2008; Neubert & Taggar, 2004; Roberts, Wilson, Fedurek, & Dunbar, 2008; Totterdell, Holman, &
Hukin, 2008). High levels of extraversion have indicated sociability, assertiveness and dominance over their present situation, ea-
gerness and pleasure from work and their environment (Digman, 1990). Individuals with high extraversion are proactive in build-
ing networks which is positively related to their career advancement (Judge et al., 1999; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999).
Therefore, subordinates demonstrating extraversion as a trait would probably have the tendency to be more proactive in
prospecting into the high performers' social capital. They possibly would be more adept at converting the high performers' social
ties into their own and use their own sociability to expand their network (Ferris et al., 2008; Forret & Dougherty, 2001; Pollet,
Roberts, & Dunbar, 2015; Roberts et al., 2008). Realisation of the significance of being part of the same social network as high
performers would further help them utilise this network to increase in social capital for their career advancement. In contrast,
subordinates with low levels of extraversion have been rated to be less social and have a lower likelihood of incorporating the
high performers' social ties into their own network (Ferris et al., 2008; Forret & Dougherty, 2001; Pollet et al., 2015; Roberts
et al., 2008). Since they tend to be less proactive in modifying their current social surroundings (Crant, 1995; Major, Turner, &
Fletcher, 2006) they might rather depend on their managers' sponsorship to encourage them to utilise these social ties rather
than proactively build their social network. If there is no conscious effort on behalf of the managers to integrate their subordinates
into newer networks and the subordinates have low extraversion, the process of enrichment of social capital would be slow or
incidental compared with those with high extraversion. In case of lack of sponsorship from the high performer, subordinates
with high extraversion would have more probability to utilise this possible access to newer networks due to their own propensity
to networking. On the other hand, low extraversion would eventually lead to a lower social capital than their peers working with
the same high performer. Thus we can propose that:
Proposition 2b. Extraversion of subordinates will positively moderate the relationship between manager's networking abilities and
enrichment of social capital of the subordinate.
Along with extraversion, another trait of the subordinate which positively moderates the utilisation of their managers'
networks is self-esteem. Self-esteem is an indicator of how positively do individuals assess themselves (Brockner, 1988). High
self-esteem gives individuals the confidence to propagate new social ties and nurture extended social networks. Even though
certain key actors in the organisation are not a part of their immediate network, high self-esteem tends to make them believe
that they will be able to contribute to the network and not just gain from it. Therefore, people with high self-esteem might
engage in more networking behaviours and have higher social capital (de Janasz & Forret, 2007). When subordinates are exposed
to their high performing manager's social network, if their self-esteem is low, the subordinates might hesitate in engaging with
new social ties and might lose out on the opportunity to strengthen their own social network. However, if their self-esteem is
high, there would be a higher probability of harnessing the high performer's social network to create their own social capital
(Forret & Dougherty, 2001). Thus we can propose that:
Proposition 2c. High self-esteem of subordinates will positively moderate the relationship between managers' networking abilities and
enrichment of social capital of the subordinates.
6. Summary and implications for future research and practice
Literature has suggested that working in near proximity of high performers has a positive influence on careers of employees. If
the impact is positive when they work as peers, it was important to conceptualise what this impact would have been if these high
performers were also their managers. Most studies have attributed that, managers' conscious actions and intentional effort to-
wards their subordinates impact the latter's career advancement (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002; Sloan, 2007; Wang et al., 2005).
However, in addition to this “direct” impact, there is an additional influence of the characteristics of the managers. Through
the lens of SLT and SIT, we have aimed at understanding an “indirect” impact that might happen as a consequence of working
under high performers.
Our framework proposes that high performers have a positive “indirect” impact on their subordinates. This impact mainly
stems from their job competencies and networking abilities. Job competencies have a positive impact on the subordinates' career
advancement. The presence of job competencies in high performers would lead to emulation of these competencies by their
subordinates. Emulation of characteristics repeatedly leads to change in human capital. Since the capabilities being emulated
are those of high performers they could enrich the human capital of the subordinate which can be enhanced if the subordinates
have high self-efficacy. Upgrading skills, knowledge and abilities, or enrichment of their human capital would predictably lead to
the career advancement of the subordinate.
Simultaneously, networking abilities of high performers would allow these managers access to rich networks and key actors
within the organisation. In the course of work, the subordinates on being exposed to these networks could utilise this exposure
to form their own productive networks leading to enrichment of their social capital. This enrichment would be enhanced if the
subordinate is high on extraversion and self-esteem. As past research has suggested, enriched “human capital” complemented
with enriched “social capital” will positively impact their career advancement opportunities (Metz & Tharenou, 2001). Therefore,
without “directly” investing in their subordinates' careers, these managers purely on the basis of possessing characteristics of a
high performer can create an “indirect” yet positive impact. This argument might seem contradictory to the previous literature,
however we would like to expound that this “indirect” impact would be in the presence of both high and low “direct” impacts,
by the virtue of the intrinsic characteristics of the high performer, which in our model are restricted to job competencies &
networking abilities.
Extant literature has emphasised the relationship between the manager and the subordinates which has been demonstrated
through research on LMX and supervisory support. This literature concentrates on the benefits and positive impact due to the at-
titude of the manager towards the subordinate. The more social the relationship, the higher the proximity and the more the lead-
er believes in the growth and development of their subordinates the more will be the benefits in terms of turnover intentions, job
satisfaction, performance and even career advancement (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Dulebohn et al., 2012; Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Liden et al., 2008; Whittington, 1997; Wayne et al., 2002). We add to the literature by
positing that when a team is managed by a high performer, whether s/he exhibits “direct” impact or not, merely on the basis
of the professional and functional relationship there will be a positive impact on the subordinates' career advancement. In
Fig. 2, we elaborate on the same point by conceptually delineating between “direct” and “indirect” impacts. Review of literature
highlights that subordinates gain when managers directly contribute to their growth and development. Our paper adds that when
the manager is a high performer then there will be an “indirect” impact on the subordinates' career. This “indirect” effect is ad-
ditive in nature and would be present irrespective of whether the manager proactively contributes the subordinates' career or not.
We are aiming at conceptually isolating this “indirect” effect to understand its impact on the subordinates' career. The best case
scenario for a subordinate would be when the manager takes interest in the subordinates' career indicating “direct” impact along
with being a high performer thus being able to enrich the subordinates' human & social capital which would positively impact
their career advancement.
In a situation where there is no “direct” impact, we are assuming that there is no or low LMX and/or supervisory support.
Examining past literature and the scales of each of these constructs we can perceive that low or negligible “direct” impact, simply
means that the relationship between the boss and the subordinate is transactional or limited to professional interaction. Therefore,
there is no extra-role behaviour on behalf of the boss to develop or take an interest in their subordinates' career advancement. In
addition to this, if the manager is not a high performer, the subordinates' social and human capital might not get enriched by
the manager's job competencies or networking abilities. Therefore, there will be minimal “indirect” impact as has been
conceptualised.
In a virtual or geographically spread team, we are assuming that due to lack of face to face interaction, the interaction might be
restricted to work-related tasks and discussions which would allow the subordinates to observe the high performer's competence
levels and have access to work-related networks. And therefore, our model might be applicable in such situations. However there
is a possibility that, in such teams, the interaction is so limited that the subordinate is unable to observe their manager's work-
related behaviour too, which might result in a weak ‘indirect” impact along with negligible “direct” impact.
Our model looks at developing and understanding this “indirect” impact, which would be present irrespective of the presence
of “direct” impact. We have endeavoured to understand this phenomenon through the lens of SLT and SIT. SLT helps us under-
stand subordinates' learning from high performers through observation and modelling. The competencies exhibited by high per-
formers are emulated and eventually imbibed by the subordinates, enriching their human and social capital. SIT explains the
motivational drivers for subordinates to adopt the high performer's behavioural and functional aspects. The enrichment of
human and social capital leads to a positive impact on their career advancement.
6.1. Limitations
In the context of role theory, the “indirect” impact does not include the roles of the manager that are directly linked to the
career and growth of the subordinate. “Direct” impact induces mutual respect, trust and obligation which drive both the manager
Fig. 2. Conceptual division on the basis of “direct” and “indirect” impact of managers.
and the subordinate to perform certain roles that are not formally defined. The “indirect” impact ignores the probability of this
extra-role behaviour. In addition to that, this model is not capable to explain circumstances where the high performer has an abu-
sive or negative relationship with her/his subordinates, since that scenario a number of other variables might come into play
distorting the sanctity of this framework. This model would be most suited in industries where the evaluation of the performance
of the manager is dependent on her/his functional and technical expertise rather than supervisory skills. In teams, where the
manager's task mainly consists of ensuring that the subordinates are doing their tasks and motivating them, this “indirect” impact
might not be applicable. Also, the “indirect” impact would be most pertinent in early career stages, where learning of technical
competencies is most relevant (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994; Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden, & Bravo, 2011).
6.2. Implications for research
The proposed conceptual model provides an unexplored though a potentially prolific field of research in the domain of lead-
ership and manager–subordinate dyads. Our propositions though seemingly contradictory to previous literature are in essence
supplementary. This paper aims at building on previous research and exploring some of the hidden effects that different managers
might have on their subordinates. Previous papers have emphasised that LMX and supervisory support are the prominent factors
that determine the impact of the manager on the subordinate. However, the manager's functional expertise and performance have
not been taken into account. This opens up a whole new area of leadership research where we can measure the impact of a high
performer on their subordinates. Future research can be conducted to test the proposed model empirically. An empirical model
would allow us to determine the intensity of this “indirect” impact vis-à-vis “direct” impact.
While empirically testing this model, the effect of organisational factors, inequality in the positions between the subordinate
and the manager, ratio of manager to the number of subordinates within a team, divergence in terms of goals etc. on this indirect
impact can also be included. A future study can also be done in culturally diverse countries to see if this indirect impact is affected
due the new variables. Currently, all these factors cannot be included in the model. The model provides the foundation for the
effect that a high performer might have on her/his subordinates. The degree of impact might be impacted by any of the above
factors mentioned. This conceptual paper thus provides the base to further explore more indirect outcomes in several different
contexts.
6.3. Implications for practice
The implications of our model for organisations, HR policy, HR practitioners, and line managers are considerable. From an
organisational perspective, this paper becomes extremely important as the ratio of manager to employees is decreasing in several
industries that are trying to cut down their middle management strength. Organisations where managers are handling large
teams, individually mentoring and handholding subordinates would not be practically possible. Therefore to ensure that subordi-
nates learn, develop and grow within the organisations, the functional and professional capabilities of the manager become
critical. In the context of our paper training of managers in such organisations has to go beyond mentoring and traditional
team management. Similarly, in the case of virtual and geographically spread teams, there is a need to create avenues to prolif-
erate “indirect” impact of the managers on the employees. With rising pressure on managers, their own expertise becomes
extremely important in ensuring the team moves towards the growth of the company.
HR professionals recognise that as the contour of the industry is changing they will have to modify the structure of teams ac-
cordingly. As the personal manager–subordinate interaction time and opportunities are decreasing, teams have to be re-structured
to ensure that there is professional and functional collaboration to warrant transfer of skills from the manager to the subordinate.
Suitable modifications in the HR policy would be needed to ensure that the impact is sustainable. Subsequently HR needs to build
a culture of creating high performing teams using high performers as anchors. Therefore there is a need to learn and document
best practices of teams, where in spite of the lack of any direct effort on behalf of the high performers, there is a positive impact
on the subordinates' careers. Constant communication and reiteration of these best practices across the organisations by the top
management and HR partners through various media including stories and training programmes are important. HR needs to put
in HR systems to ensure that subordinates are able to enhance their own human & social capital while working with high per-
formers. HR systems including training, performance management and compensation and benefits should be aligned to encourage
such behaviour in their organisations.
For subordinates, this framework would allow them to manage their careers if they find themselves in a subordinate–manager
dyad with low LMX or low supervisory support. It also suggests on how to work optimally with high performers in a high per-
formance work culture. Subordinates need to understand that organisations will not always provide the perfect environment for
them to acquire capabilities or networks that enrich their careers. This framework proposes career advancement under such a sce-
nario, wherein the onus of their careers lies with the subordinate rather than their managers or organisations. Subordinates thus
need to acquire maximum competencies and enrich their human capital via multiple modes of learning, especially social learning
in this scenario. Additionally, the role of self-efficacy in their growth becomes pertinent. Application of learning through observa-
tion and its success would enable high self-efficacy amongst subordinates, which would further enhance their human capital
development.
Subordinates also need to understand that it is not necessary that high quality networks of high performers would be amal-
gamated with their own networks just because they have been exposed to them. Subordinates will have to be proactive if they
want to utilise and own the high performer's networks to improve their own social capital, especially if they recognise their levels
of extraversion & self-esteem.
For line managers, this framework allows them to cope up with the demands on their role as a manager especially when they
do not have the time to look into the careers of each of their subordinates. Managers should utilise the power of observational
learning to transfer their skills to their subordinates. The managers need to create an environment where learning and skill de-
velopment can be done through social modelling rather than through direct reinforcement. They also must realise that they
must give access to their social networks to their team members. Another aspect that this paper concentrates on is managing
self and strengthening your own position before you start managing your subordinate's career. High performers not only directly
contribute to the organisation's goals but also create a culture of high performance & through the ripple effect positively impact
the career advancement of their team members.
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Aguinis, H., & O'Boyle, E. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 313–350.
Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1997). The role of examples & rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 932.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177–202.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Tan, H. H. (1994). An examination of the antecedents of subjective career success among a managerial sample in Singapore. Human Relations,
47(5), 487–509.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational & transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462.
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement & supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance & job satisfaction.
Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 57–75.
Backhaus, K., & Heiner, K. (2014). The effects of group-level & individual contributions on business simulation team performance. Organization Management Journal,
11(3), 172–179.
Baker, W. E. (2000). Networking smart: How to build relationships for personal & organizational success. Bloomington: iUniverse, Incorporated.
Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M., & Harrison, D. A. (2011). Centrality & charisma: Comparing how leader networks & attributions affect team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(6), 1209–1222.
Ballout, H. I. (2007). Career success: The effects of human capital, person–environment fit & organizational support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(8), 741–765.
Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. New York: General Learning.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1971). Vicarious & self-reinforcement processes. The Nature of Reinforcement (pp. 228–278).
Bandura, A. (1976). Self-reinforcement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Behaviorism, 4(2), 135–155.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 237–269.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought & action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–290.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(1), 39–66.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research & development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. Martin Chemers, & Roya Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory & research:
Perspectives & directions (pp. 49–80). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership & the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Management, 12(1), 73–87.
Bauer, Michael W. (2008). Diffuse anxieties, deprived entrepreneurs. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5), 691–707.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical & empirical analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Bernheim, B. D. (1994). A theory of conformity. Journal of Political Economy, 102(5), 841–877.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange & power in social life. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Boyatzis, Richard E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Brass, D. J., & Krackhardt, D. (1999). The social capital of twenty-first century leaders. In J. G. Hunt, & R. L. Phillips (Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the
twenty-first-century army & other top-performing organizations (pp. 179–194). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks & organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817.
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32–54.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, & practice. Lexington Books/DC Heath & Com.
Brower, H. H., Lester, S. W., Korsgaard, M. A., & Dineen, B. R. (2009). A closer look at trust between managers & subordinates. Journal of Management, 35, 327–347.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development & testing. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.
Burke, Michael J., Borucki, Chester C., & Hurley, Amy E. (1992). Reconceptualizing psychological climate in a retail service environment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77(5), 717–729.
Burt, R. S. (1997). A note on social capital & network content. Social Networks, 19(4), 355–373.
Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition. In N. Nohria, & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks & organizations: Structure, form, & action (pp. 57–91). Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M. J. (1994). Career-related antecedents and outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1518–1542.
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 225–262.
Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, & accuracy in social network perception. Social Networks, 20(4), 331–351.
Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2005). Competent jerks, lovable fools, & the formation of social networks. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 92–99.
Cashman, J., Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1976). Organizational understructure & leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making pro-
cess. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 278–296.
Cheng, E. W., & Ho, D. C. (2001). A review of transfer of training studies in the past decade. Personnel Review, 30(1), 102–118.
Cheng, M. I., Dainty, A. R., & Moore, D. R. (2005). What makes a good project manager? Human Resource Management Journal, 15(1), 25–37.
Chong, E. (2013). Managerial competencies & career advancement: A comparative study of managers in two countries. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 345–353.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120 (Supplement).
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders' human capital & the growth of new technology-based firms. Research Policy, 34(6), 795–816.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory & practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.
Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale & objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532.
Cross, R., & Thomas, R. J. (2008). How top talent uses networks & where rising stars get trapped. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 165–180.
Cross, R., Davenport, T. H., & Cantrell, S. (2003). The social side of performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 20.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
13, 46–78.
Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D., & Singh, S. (2012). Impact of managerial communication styles on employees' attitudes & behaviours. Employee Relations, 35(2), 173–199.
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
Davis, T. R., & Luthans, F. (1980). Managers in action: A new look at their behavior & operating modes. Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 64–80.
de Janasz, S. C., & Forret, M. L. (2007). Learning the art of networking: A critical skill for enhancing social capital & career success. Journal of Management Education.
De Janasz, S. C., Sullivan, S. E., & Whiting, V. (2003). Mentor networks & career success: Lessons for turbulent times. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(4),
78–91.
De Vos, A., & Soens, N. (2008). Protean attitude & career success: The mediating role of self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 449–456.
Delmar, F. (2000). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In S. Carter, & D. Jones-Evans (Eds.), Enterprise & small business (pp. 132–154). Essex: Financial Times Prentice
Hall.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique & further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3),
618–634.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. In M. R. Rosenzweig, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, 41. (pp.
417–440). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader–member exchange. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 395–413.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents & consequences of leader–member exchange integrating
the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development & performance. Academy of Management Journal,
45(4), 735–744.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational
support & employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565.
Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G., & Senker, P. (1998). Development of knowledge & skills in employment. Brighton: University of Sussex Institute of Education.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence & intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader–member exchange & perceived
organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57, 305–332.
Farmer, S. M., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Accounting for subordinate perceptions of supervisor power: An identity-dependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1069–1083.
Feldman, D. C. (2007). Career mobility & career stability among older workers. In K. S. Schultz, & G. A. Adams (Eds.), Aging & work in the 21st century (pp. 179–198).
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Blickle, G., Schneider, P. B., Kramer, J., Zettler, I., Solga, J., ... Meurs, J. A. (2008). Political skill construct & criterion-related validation: A two-study investi-
gation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(7), 744–771.
Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dy-
adic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35, 1379–1403.
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management's strategic influence & organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465–485.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial & professional employees. Group & Organization Management, 26(3),
283–311.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2004). Networking behaviors & career outcomes: Differences for men & women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 419–437.
Garavan, T. N., Morley, M., Gunnigle, P., & Collins, E. (2001). Human capital accumulation: The role of human resource development. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 25(2/3/4), 48–68.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates & construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6),
827–844.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior & human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472–485.
Gist, M. E., Bavetta, A. G., & Stevens, C. K. (1990). Transfer training method: Its influence on skill generalization, skill repetition, & performance level. Personnel
Psychology, 43(3), 501.
Gould, S., & Hawkins, B. L. (1978). Organizational career stage as a moderator of the satisfaction–performance relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 21(3),
434–450.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–177.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245).
Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Graen, G. B. (2013). The missing link in network dynamics. In Michael G. Rumsey (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 359–375). London: Oxford University
Press.
Graen, G. B., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader–member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206–212.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing & partially self-designing contributor. Management Department Faculty
Publications, 16.
Graen, G., Orris, D., & Johnson, T. (1973). Role assimilation processes in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 395–420.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange theory of leadership over 25 years. The
Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1(1), 201–233.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Greene, C. N. (1975). The reciprocal nature of influence between leader & subordinate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 187–193.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, & career outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86.
Groysberg, B., Lee, L. E., & Nanda, A. (2008). Can they take it with them? The portability of star knowledge workers' performance. Management Science, 54(7),
1213–1230.
Hacker, M. (2000). The impact of top performers on project teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 6(5/6), 85–90.
Harris, C. M., Pattie, M. W., & McMahan, G. C. (2015). Advancement along a career path: The influence of human capital & performance. Human Resource Management
Journal, 25(1), 102–115.
Haslam, S. A., Ellemers, N., Reicher, S. D., Reynolds, K. J., & Schmitt, M. T. (2010). The social identity perspective today: The impact of its defining ideas. In T. Postmes, &
N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Rediscovering social identity (pp. 341–379). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 113–136.
Hill, L. A. (1992). Becoming a manager: Mastery of a new identity. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200.
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–1369). California: Stanford University Press.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, & a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352.
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational & transactional leadership, & distance on
predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 680.
Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership & physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
16(2), 273–285.
Humble, J., Jackson, D., & Thomson, A. (1994). The strategic power of corporate values. Long Range Planning, 27(6), 28–42.
Ichniowski, C., & Preston, A. (2014). Do Star performers produce more stars? Peer effects & learning in elite teams (no. w20478). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (1999). Supervisor support & career anchor impact on the career satisfaction of the entry-level information systems professional. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 16(3), 219–240.
Jones, G. (2008). How the best of the best get better & better. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 123–126.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, & career success across the life span. Personnel
Psychology, 52(3), 621–652.
Kalish, Y. (2008). Bridging in social networks: Who are the people in structural holes & why are they there? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 53–66.
Katz, R. L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Press.
Katz, R., Tushman, M., & Allen, T. J. (1995). The influence of supervisory promotion & network location on subordinate careers in a dual ladder RD and E setting.
Management Science, 41(5), 848–863.
Kennedy, F. A., Loughry, M. L., Klammer, T. P., & Beyerlein, M. M. (2008). Effects of organizational support on potency in work teams: The mediating role of team pro-
cesses. Small Group Research.
Kim, M. S. (2014). A new perspective on team leadership: The role of the leader's social capital, perceived power, & team commitment in enhancing team-level perceived
support, efficacy, & cohesion. (Doctoral dissertation) Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick.
Klemp, G. O., & McClelland, D. C. (1986). What characterizes intelligent functioning among senior managers. Practical intelligence (pp. 31–50).
Kotter, J. P. (2008). Corporate culture & performance. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, & affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career
opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 485–500.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110–132.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview: Scott Foresman.
Kraut, A. I., Pedigo, P. R., McKenna, D. D., & Dunnette, M. D. (1989). The role of the manager: What's really important in different management jobs. The Academy of
Management Executive, 3(4), 286–293.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional & transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, 648–657.
Lam, L. W., Peng, K. Z., Wong, C. S., & Lau, D. C. (2015). Is more feedback seeking always better? Leader–member exchange moderates the relationship between feed-
back-seeking behavior & performance. Journal of Management.
Landis, B. (2015). Personality & social networks in organizations: A review & future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Le Blanc, P. M., & González-Romá, V. (2012). A team level investigation of the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation, & commitment &
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 534–544.
Lee, Y. T. (2010). Exploring high-performers' required competencies. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 434–439.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation & development. Academy of Management Review,
24(1), 31–48.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24,
43–72.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past & potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel &
human resources management, Vol. 15. (pp. 47–119). Greenwich: JAI.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure & multi-level assessment. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 161–177.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, & task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241.
Luthans, F. (1988). Successful vs. effective real managers. Academy of Management Executive, 2(2), 127–132.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(3), 387–393.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human & social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45–50.
Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Hennessey, H. W. (1985). What do successful managers really do? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(3), 255–270.
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Reflections on the cognitive-learning trend in psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 32(1), 5.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality & the Big Five to motivation to learn & development activity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 927.
Malatesta, R. M. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of organizational & supervisory commitment using a social exchange framework. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 361–367.
Markman, G. D., Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. (2002). Inventors & new venture formation: The effects of general self-efficacy & regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 27, 149–165.
Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader–member exchange & its dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 697–708.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- & cognitive-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style & emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 545–559.
McKenna, S. (2002). Can knowledge of the characteristics of “high performers” be generalised? The Journal of Management Development, 21(9), 680–701.
Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006). The social network ties of group leaders: Implications for group performance & leader reputation.
Organization Science, 17(1), 64–79.
Metz, I., & Tharenou, P. (2001). Women's career advancement the relative contribution of human & social capital. Group & Organization Management, 26(3),
312–342.
Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level & subunit function as determinants of networking behavior in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 18(3),
328–351.
Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2(1), 60–67.
Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning & imitation. New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. Harper & Row.
Motwani, J. G., Frahm, M. L., & Kathawala, Y. (1994). Achieving a competitive advantage through quality training. Training for Quality, 2(1), 35–40.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, & the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Narin, F., & Breitzman, A. (1995). Inventive productivity. Research Policy, 24(4), 507–519.
Neubert, M. J., & Taggar, S. (2004). Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating role of gender on the relationship of individual differences & team member net-
work centrality to informal leadership emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 175–194.
Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective & subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408.
Noe, R. A. (1988). Women & mentoring: A review & research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 65–78.
O'Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors & uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15(2), 141–155.
Oldroyd, J. B., & Morris, S. S. (2012). Catching falling stars: A human resource response to social capital's detrimental effect of information overload on star employees.
Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 396–418.
Orpen, C. (1995). The effects of mentoring on employees' career success. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(5), 667–668.
Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 575.
Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Supervisors' beliefs & subordinates' intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 331.
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources & relationships: Social networks & mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 673–693.
Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G., & Dunbar, R. I. (2015). Extraverts have larger social network layers. Journal of Individual Differences.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning mechanisms, culture, & feasibility. Management Learning, 31(2), 181–196.
Portes, A. (2000). Social capital: Its origins & applications in modern sociology. In L. Eric (Ed.), Knowledge & social capital (pp. 43–67). Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Rich, G. A. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, & performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4),
319–328.
Roberts, S., Wilson, R., Fedurek, P., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Individual differences & personal social network size & structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4),
954–964.
Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. The American Economic Review, 845–858.
Sandefur, R. L., & Laumann, E. O. (1998). A paradigm for social capital. Rationality and Society, 10, 481–501.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship & career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 169–174.
Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders: A leader–member exchange approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 243–263.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader–member exchange & supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. (2002). How similarity to peers & supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal,
45(6), 1120–1136.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture & leadership, Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, & data-analytic
practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–113.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality & career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001b). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001a). A longitudinal model linking proactive personality & career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, & employee reciprocity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219.
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational
support, & performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689.
Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Gender & impression management: Playing the promotion game. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 77–89.
Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S., & James, K. (2006). Constructing a professional identity: How young female managers use role models. Women in Management Review, 21(1),
67–81.
Sloan, S.L. (2007). Does working for a better performing boss improve subordinate performance? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University,
North Carolina.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader–member exchange & social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50(4), 505–535.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process & structure in leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522–552.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations & supervisors as sources of support & targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 251–270.
Sturges, J. (1999). What it means to succeed: Personal conceptions of career success held by male & female managers at different ages. British Journal of Management,
10(3), 239–252.
Sturges, J., Guest, D., Conway, N., & Davey, K. M. (2002). A longitudinal study of the relationship between career management & organizational commitment among
graduates in the first ten years at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 731–748.
Sturman, M. C., Walsh, K., & Cheramie, R. A. (2008). The value of human capital specificity versustransferability. Journal of Management, 34(2), 290–316.
Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79–97.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of ‘La categorisation sociale. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale, Vol. 1. (pp. 272–302).
Paris: Larousse.
Tajfel, H. (2010). Social identity & intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tharenou, P., Latimer, S., & Conroy, D. (1994). How do you make it to the top? An examination of influences on women's & men's managerial advancement. Academy of
Totterdell, P., Holman, D., & Hukin, A. (2008). Social networkers: Measuring & examining individual differences in propensity to connect with others. Social Networks,
30(4), 283–296.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity & intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism & social influence.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), 237–252.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison & group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187–204.
Tymon, W. G., & Stumpf, S. A. (2003). Social capital in the success of knowledge workers. Career Development International, 8(1), 12–20.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2008). Opportunity identification & pursuit: Does an entrepreneur's human capital matter? Small Business Economics, 30(2),
153–173.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. M. (2003). Reciprocity in manager–subordinate relationships. Journal of Management, 29, 511–532.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader–member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems. In G. R. Ferris
(Ed.), Research in personnel & human resources management, Vol. 18. (pp. 137–185). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping & enhance the positive impact of high LMX on
voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1195.
van Emmerik, I. H., Euwema, M. C., Geschiere, M., & Schouten, M. F. (2006). Networking your way through the organization: Gender differences in the relationship
between network participation & career satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 21(1), 54–66.
Venkataramani, V., Green, S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-connected leaders: The impact of leaders' social network ties on LMX & members' work attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1071.
Venkataramani, V., Richter, A. W., & Clarke, R. (2014). Creative benefits from well-connected leaders: Leader social network ties as facilitators of employee radical
creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 966.
Volmer, J., & Sonnentag, S. (2011). The role of star performers in software design teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 219–234.
Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The Japanese career progress study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 603–614.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership &
followers' performance & organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420–432.
Waters, J. A. (1980). Managerial skill development. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 449–453.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of human capital, motivation & supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20(5), 577–595.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support & leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member
exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590–598.
Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 19(1), 89–105.
Wexley, K. N., & Pulakos, E. D. (1983). The effects of perceptual congruence & sex on subordinates' performance appraisals of their managers. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(4), 666–676.
Whittington, J. L. (1997). An integrative model of transformational leadership & follower behavior. Unpublished thesis.
Wickramasinghe, V., & Zoyza, N. D. (2009). An assessment of managerial competency needs: Empirical evidence from a Sri Lankan telecommunication service provid-
er. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(12), 2547–2567.
Wolff, H. G., & Moser, K. (2009). Effects of networking on career success: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 196.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources & the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701–721.
Young, Mike, & Dulewicz, V. (2009). A study into leadership & management competencies predicting superior performance in the British Royal Navy. The Journal of
Management Development, 28(9), 794–820.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations. India: Pearson Education.
Zalesny, M. D., & Graen, G. B. (1987). Exchange theory in leadership research. In A. Kieser, G. Reber, & R. Wanderer (Eds.), Handbook of leadership (pp. 714–727). Stutt-
gart, Germany: C.E. Paeschel, Verlag.
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The employee–organization relationship, supervisory support, & middle manager trust in
the organization. Human Resource Management, 47(1), 111–132.

Human Resource Management Review: Pearl Malhotra, Manjari Singh

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Human Resource Management Review: Pearl Malhotra, Manjari Singh

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Human Resource Management Review 26 (2016) 209–226

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

Indirect impact of high performers on the career advancement

2. Deﬁning key constructs

2.1. High performers

2.2. Direct impact of managers on subordinates

2.3. “Indirect” impact of high performers on subordinates' career advancement

2.4. Career advancement

2.5. Job competencies of high performers

2.6. Networking abilities of high performers

2.7. Enrichment of human capital

2.8. Enrichment of social capital

3. Literature review and theoretical underpinnings of “direct” impact of managers

3.1. Understanding “direct” impact of managers on subordinates using LMX

3.2. Understanding “direct” impact of managers on subordinates using supervisory support

4.1. Impact of job competencies on subordinate's career advancement

4.2. Impact of networking abilities on subordinates' career advancement

5. Framework integrating mediators and moderators affecting “indirect” impact

5.1.1. Emulation of job competencies

5.1.2. Enriched human capital of subordinates

5.2.1. Enriched social capital of subordinates

5.2.2. Extraversion and self-esteem of subordinates

6. Summary and implications for future research and practice

6.2. Implications for research

6.3. Implications for practice

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi